ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal who declined the prayer in the application filed by the petitioner seeking the copy of the evidence recorded in cross-examination of the workman in the industrial disputes pending before the respondent No. 1. The petitioner herein is the Municipal Employees Union representing the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the respondent No. 1 is the Industrial Tribunal through its Presiding Officer and the respondent No. 2 is the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The order under challenge in the writ petition reads as under:-
“These are two Misc. Applications moved by the authorised representative of the workman with a request that the copies of the evidence being recorded by the Tribunal be given to him. In support of this fact he has placed reliance on Delhi High Court Rules. On being desired to help the Tribunal about there being any provision of law or rules under I.D. Act he has candidly conceded of there being no such to the same but has submitted that for the convenience of the parties an order to the same be passed. It is true that in issuing the copies of the evidence being recorded it may proved to be convenient to both the parties as well as to can be unhealthy practice of making the inspection by unauthorised manner, but in view of there being no provision to the same no order, as is being desired, can be passed. An incidental questions in case such order is issued pertaining to the maintenance of the accounts and stationary to be required and the responsibility to account far the amount on being realised for the same and thereafter as to which account of land the amounts so relied is to be deposited. For such purposes the amendment in the rules of the Industrial Disputes Act is required for which the tribunal is not competent to do so. Thus keeping in mind the above facts no order to issue a copy of the statement being recorded simultaneously can be ordered by the tribunal as is desired. Both the applications though pertaining to different I.D. reference are disposed off accordingly.”
2. It is necessary in this respect to consider the provisions which would apply in the present case. The relevant provision is Rule 26 of The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which reads as follows:-
“Fees for copies of awards or other documents of Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal- (1) Fees for making a copy of an award or an order of a Labour Court. Tribunal or National Tribunal or any document filed in any proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal be charged at the rate of Rs. 1 per page.
(2) For certifying a copy of any such award or order or document, a fee of Rs. 1 shall be payable.
(3) Copying and certifying fees shall be payable in cash in advance.
(4) Where a party applies for immediate delivery of a copy of any such award or order or document, an additional fee equal to one-half of the fee leviable under this rule shall be payable.
3. The petitioner has sought the implementation of the above rule by seeking the copy of the evidence recorded in cross-examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not possible to have an effective disposal of the matter before the Industrial Tribunal unless and until a copy of the deposition is available. It is indisputable that a sine-qua-non for effective functioning of the judicial system is the availability to the parties of any proceedings before the court concerned and in particular the evidence led before the trial court i.e. the Industrial Tribunal in this instance. Even the principal of natural justice would require that parties have a convenient access to the copies of the record of the case. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the term “document” contained in the above rule cannot cover the deposition of a witness. In my view this is a highly technical view and does not advance the purpose behind the rule. Once the deposition of a witness is reduced in writing the said written deposition, in my view, does constitute a “document falling within the meaning of Rule 26 set out above and accordingly a copy of the deposition aught to be made available to any applicant subject to the fulfillment of the attendant conditions.
4. If the view propounded by the Tribunal is upheld it will only lead to a situation where the only alternative would be to resolve to a length time consuming and laborious inspection of the record which is not conducive to the proper functioning of the Industrial Tribunals.
5. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7th October, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Respondent No. 3, is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the application dated 23.9.96 in accordance with Rule 26 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 and if the application is in order copy of the deposition be made available on payment of requisite charges to the applicant within four weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. This procedure shown henceforth govern all similar applications before the Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts.